Aussie who makes $300k a year reveals how you could too with a three-day course - but the job is a lot harder than what many think
Ethan Forbes, who is based in Baringa on the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, was stopped while on the beach and asked how much he makes in his role.
He said he 'accidentally fell' into real estate, joking that it was for the 'wrong reasons'.
'I had a mate who was in it. He had the watch, the car, and I was like, I just want to be like that,' he said.
Mr Forbes, who works for LJ Hooker's branch in Caloundra, said he took home $130,000 in his first year as an agent.
'[I earned] $291,000 in GIC [Gross Commission Income] so probably took home $130,000, but that was working six to seven days a week, 12-hour days, with no holidays,' he said.
'Literally, right now, I'm on my holidays for the first time in two years.'
He also described the 'pretty easy' training he opted for to get into the real estate industry.
'It's a six-month course or a three-day course, depending on which one you go with,' he said, adding the short one was in person while the months-long one was online.
When asked why someone would choose the longer course, Mr Forbes told the interviewer that it was cheaper.
'So the three days (is) like three grand, the other one's like $500.'
During the interview, Mr Forbes said the hardest thing about being a real estate agent is 'emotions with your clients', adding that he is an 'emotional sponge'.
'You got to take everything on and also talking to people that don't want to talk to you,' he siad.
'It's prospecting. 80 per cent of it is like we're glorified telemarketers.'
Mr Forbes said the most expensive property he sold was $1.302 million which would suggest his commission might have been within the range of $26,040 and $52,080.
The average earnings for real estate agents in Australia vary depending on experience, location, and commission structures.
According to SEEK, real estate agents typically earn between $75,000 and $95,000 per year.
The bulk of this income comes from commissions which usually range from 2 per cent to 4 per cent of the property's sale price, as noted by RealEstate.com.au.
Because of this commission-based structure, only top-performing agents are likely to earn over $100,000 annually.
In Queensland, the minimum requirement to begin working in real estate is obtaining a Real Estate Registration Certificate.
Once certified, an individual is allowed to work as a real estate agent, but only under the supervision of a fully licensed agent.
Rules on how long someone must train to become a licensed agent vary depending on which territory or state someone is in.
But it is generally understood that, before applying for a licence, someone must complete an approved real estate course and have at least 12 months of full-time work experience.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
13 hours ago
- The Guardian
Car loan scandal: what the supreme court ruling means for drivers and the UK economy
The supreme court has partly overturned an earlier ruling on the car finance commission scandal – seemingly granting UK banks a reprieve and potentially limiting compensation payouts to those consumers whose cases are more serious. We explain what this means for consumers, whether anyone should expect compensation, and what the next steps are from here. The car loans scandal has been rumbling on for more than 18 months but ballooned after a court of appeal judgment that sided with three consumers in October 2024. Before that point, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) was running a narrower investigation into discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs), where motor finance lenders gave dealers the power to set interest rates on car loans. The higher the interest rate, the more commission the dealer received. The controversial practice – which allegedly incentivised dealers to overcharge customers – was eventually banned by the FCA in 2021. In the meantime, three car buyers took their cases to the court of appeal, which ruled on the much wider issue of how commissions were disclosed. In October 2024, that court sided with the claimants and ruled that it was against the law for the dealers to receive any sort of commission from the lender without first telling the customer and getting their informed consent. The shock decision had ramifications for all hidden commission arrangements, not just DCAs. Across the UK, 80%-90% of new cars, and an increasing number of used vehicles, are bought with the help of a loan, the vast majority of which would have been arranged by a broker who is paid commission by a lender. The judgment threw open the door to a huge compensation bill for car lenders including Santander UK, Close Brothers, Barclays and Lloyds, that some analysts said could top £44bn. That would be comparable to the payment protection insurance (PPI) saga, which cost banks £50bn. It also raised concerns that other types of loans involving commission payments to brokers could be in play, such as those for appliances and furniture. The two specialist lenders involved in the court of appeal case, Close Brothers and FirstRand, challenged the ruling in the supreme court, which has now revealed its verdict. It has partly overturned a lower court decision on the car finance commission scandal, apparently closing the door to compensation except in more serious cases. In their ruling, a panel of justices led by the supreme court president, Lord Reed, only upheld one consumer's case, originally filed by borrower Marcus Johnson. Cases brought by two other consumers – alleging that commissions paid to car dealers were bribes and that dealers owed a duty of loyalty to the customer – were rejected. The decision will be a blow to many consumers and the claims industry, but the fact that part of the earlier ruling was upheld has complicated the picture and meant that immediately after the verdict, experts had differing views about the potential impact. Friday's judgment followed a three-day hearing at the start of April. The FCA will confirm within six weeks – ie by 12 September – whether it is setting up a redress scheme for consumers whose agreements included a DCA. Many believe the FCA is likely to still announce a central compensation scheme for these individuals. That could add up to many thousands – and potentially millions – of vehicle buyers. The Johnson aspect of the case could also increase the chances of redress for cases where the relationship between the finance company and the customer is deemed to be unfair. Richard Coates, Partner and Head of Automotive at law firm Freeths, said: 'It is anticipated that the FCA will bring redress for those cases where it is deemed that the relationship is unfair, and we expect to learn more from the FCA about this redress scheme within the next six weeks.' However, any scheme could be challenged in court by interested parties, who will have six weeks to refer it to the upper tribunal. That could put the brakes on the rollout of any mass redress programme. But barring any legal challenge or further delay, the FCA redress scheme would probably start operating next year, meaning former car loan customers could start receiving compensation in 2026. Those most likely to be eligible are those whose agreement included a DCA, though the FCA could restrict or widen eligibility depending on its own continuing work and its views of the latest judgment. DCAs were by far the most common commission arrangement before they were outlawed: on average, between 2007 and 2020, about three-quarters of all agreements had a DCA of some sort, says the regulator. The 'end date' for potential eligibility for any redress has been suggested as 28 January 2021, when DCAs were banned. This is still unclear and will hinge on the scope of the FCA's redress scheme – assuming it definitely happens – with more details likely in the coming weeks and months. The FCA has indicated it would need to balance the interests of consumers, firms and the broader economy when setting up a compensation scheme. The regulator has said that as well as being 'fair to consumers who've lost out', any scheme must 'ensure the integrity of the motor finance market, so that it works well for future consumers'. In the case of DCAs, the regulator has estimated that consumers may have been overcharged by £1,100, as a result of paying too much interest on a typical £10,000, four-year car finance deal where this arrangement was used. But whether individuals would get back all or just a part of their 'loss' remains to be seen. It could also require firms to pay interest on top of any compensation, which could add up to a lot if it is several years' worth. Meanwhile, claims law firms have said some clients were charged much more, amounting to more several thousand pounds in hidden commission. Social media and websites have been littered with adverts claiming consumers could be entitled to thousands in compensation, and urging them to act fast. But the FCA and Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) are concerned that some firms are not telling consumers about free alternatives, are making bold and sometimes misleading claims about payouts, and charging fees worth up to 30% of any compensation payout. Over the last year, the FCA has forced 224 motor finance commission adverts to be changed or pulled entirely, while the SRA is now investigating 73 law firms for potential breaches. Also, some claims management companies are merely fishing for customer 'leads' which are then passed on to third-party law firms for a fee. The Treasury said: 'We respect this judgment from the supreme court and we will now work with regulators and industry to understand the impact for both firms and consumers.' The government has been the target of heavy lobbying by the car loan industry, which had warned that a big compensation bill could force lenders to claw back their losses: resulting in some car finance providers offering fewer or more expensive loans, while others could go bust. The Treasury has also been concerned that the scandal is deterring investment in the financial services industry, and therefore putting the UK's economic growth at risk. The Guardian revealed last week that chancellor Rachel Reeves had been considering overruling the supreme court's decision with retrospective legislation, in order to help save lenders billions of pounds, in the event that it upheld the entirety of October's court of appeal ruling. Given Friday's verdict, that will not happen.
BBC News
13 hours ago
- BBC News
Car finance: Millions denied payouts after Supreme Court ruling
Millions of motorists will not be able to claim compensation for hidden commissions paid on car loans following a Supreme Court UK's highest court sided with finance companies in two out of three crucial test cases focusing on commission payments made by banks and other credit providers to car decision reversed earlier rulings by the Court of Appeal that had opened the possibility of large-scale claims for compensation from motorists on a similar scale to the Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) mis-selling the ruling, Lord Reed said car dealers "plainly and properly" had an interest in profiting from the deals.
The Guardian
14 hours ago
- The Guardian
Adani promised Australia billions from its Carmichael mine but it hasn't paid a cent in tax. How did we get here?
It was entirely foreseeable, and has resulted in billions of dollars in forgone revenue for Australia. But just how did policymakers fail to extract a single cent in company tax from Adani's Carmichael coalmine, even though it opened during the start of a commodity price boom? To understand how it came about, you must first rewind to 2010, a period that coincided with a sharp escalation in the climate wars that would eventually tear through the political corridors of Canberra. Against that backdrop, the Indian conglomerate proposed a coalmine to extract up to 60m tonnes per year, for 150 years, making it one of the world's biggest. It would also open up the untapped Galilee Basin, ushering in a new period of resources prosperity, especially for central Queensland. The economic promise was enticing. At its peak, such an operation would create more than 10,000 full-time jobs, according to an Adani consultant's report published in 2013. The then head of Adani mining, Jeyakumar Janakaraj, said the Australian operations would deliver $22bn in taxes and royalties to be invested 'right back into frontline services'. The '10,000 jobs [and] $22bn in royalties and taxes' pledge became a mantra that was even featured in Adani TV advertisements. Sign up: AU Breaking News email It would be a win-win for the state and federal governments – royalties would flow to the state and company tax to the commonwealth – both of which needed to issue approvals. The Carmichael emissions would, of course, be colossal, producing 4.7bn tonnes of CO2-equivalent over its lifetime, once the mine, its operations and the burning of its coal were taken into account, according to analysis by the Australia Institute at the time. Annual emissions would be double the average produced by Tokyo, and three times that of New Delhi. The ensuing battle between environmentalists and the coalminer divided communities; but Adani's jobs and economic benefit pledge seemed irresistible – until it changed. In 2015, conservationists went to the Queensland land court, seeking a recommendation that Adani's applications for an environmental approval and mining lease for Carmichael be refused. The research director at the Australia Institute, Rod Campbell, says 'Adani's lawyers realised that the 10,000 jobs claim was unsupportable, so they bit the bullet'. Campbell, who provided economic analysis for the proceedings opposing Adani, says the coalminer changed consultants and argued in court for a more modest jobs claim 'but otherwise sang the praises of the mine'. The new economic models brought the expected job numbers down to fewer than 1,500. By 2015, the anticipated tonnes coming out of the mine had also reduced, from 60m a year to 40m; it would later reduce to 10m. But the projected corporate tax take still appeared strong, with the project forecast to generate about $400m a year under the new forecasts. Adani's modelling was broadly accepted by the court, even though critics pointed out it didn't account for tax minimisation strategies. By 2017, Adani's bid for a subsidised commonwealth loan was unravelling, and global banks were concerned about the economics and reputational damage of funding the new coal project. The mine's supporters doubled down, led by industry groups including the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA), which called on policymakers to back the project. The MCA chief executive, Tania Constable, said in 2018 the Queensland and Australian economies would benefit from thousands of new regional jobs. 'And through mining taxes and royalties, the Carmichael mine will generate billions of dollars for taxpayers over decades to fund nurses, teachers, police, hospitals, roads and other services and infrastructure for Queensland families and communities,' Constable said. The MCA was contacted for comment. Adani would go on to finance the project itself, although it would be a smaller project than it had envisaged, given the lack of external funding. 'The coal will be sold to customers in the Asia-Pacific region at index adjusted pricing, which means all taxes and royalties will be paid here in Australia,' Adani said in late 2021, after assembling its first shipment of thermal coal at the port. The Indian conglomerate couldn't have timed the project any better. In late 2021, prices for energy commodities had started to surge in line with the rising tension between Russia and Ukraine. Coal prices then spiked to record highs after the Russian invasion in early 2022. In its first few months of operation, Adani's mine generated more than $32.5m in revenue, according to accounts lodged with the regulator. But it recorded an operating loss after costs, leading to zero tax payable. This pattern would repeat, even as revenue increased. In the 2025 reporting period, it earned $1.27bn in revenue, but once again recorded a paper loss, as various related-party transactions and interest payments erased profits. Tim Buckley, a former investment banker and the director of Climate Energy Finance, describes Adani's finances as an 'extremely complex, opaque corporate structure'. Jason Ward, the principal analyst at the Centre for International Corporate Tax Accountability and Research, says the volume of related-party transactions is 'pretty unprecedented' and that it is set up to never pay tax. 'Every page of their financials is like, 'bing, bing, warning bells going off',' says Ward. Adani has paid royalties – payments made to governments to extract state-owned minerals – with a $78.6m payment in the 2025 accounts, and $83.5m in 2024. Its most recent accounts list just 84 direct employees at the mine, however it uses a mining services provider to hire other workers. A spokesperson for Adani's Australian mining business, which is branded Bravus Mining and Resources, says Adani has invested more than $2.5bn into Australia's economy. 'Today, more than 1,200 Queenslanders are employed at the Carmichael mine in full-time operational roles to produce high-quality thermal coal for the export market,' the Bravus spokesperson says. 'Developing nations in the Asia-Pacific region use coal from the Carmichael mine alongside renewables to provide reliable and affordable energy solutions that help reduce poverty and power growth.' While there is no suggestion Adani has acted illegally, several politicians have expressed frustration that a large resources company can pay less company tax than a low-paid worker pays in income tax. The independent senator David Pocock said on X: 'Why on earth do successive [governments] keep allowing giant multinational companies to reap super profits from the sale of our resources without paying tax?' Independent MP Zali Steggall says Adani is a 'cautionary tale', and that policymakers should reform the approvals process to place conditions on miners to meet their stated promises. She says companies invariably overstate project benefits which 'magically disappear once the operations commence, especially when you're talking about foreign-owned corporations'. 'Time and time again, we see state and federal ministers and governments approve projects on flimsy assurances that don't come true,' says Steggall. 'It's time there was proper accountability for Australian resources so that we stop giving it away in the manner we are at the moment.' Jonathan Barrett is Guardian Australia's business editor
